The Lazy H does not seem to exhibit any gain over a dipole in the real world

On Tue, 10 May 2011 06:13:36 -0700 (PDT), Michael

Hi Michael,

Then, there you have it (in your last sentence).

With a quick google of "Lazy H antenna" I find two ways to build one
(the difference being in the twist of the shared drive line between
the top and bottom elements when fed at the bottom). There are plenty
to ways to erect it wrong - to someone's sense of propriety.

Now, as to the gain. Commons sense (divorced from the effects of
ground) tell us that if one dipole has X gain, then two with the best
of additive aspects could only have 2X gain (3 dB). To say you can
achieve more than 6dB is another doubling without adding anymore
radiator (and performed only by some unspecified magic).

More the issue seems to be reporting gain. The numbers seem to be dBi
figures that are then compared to a dipole with the presumption the
dipole gain could be expressed as 0dBi.

Lastly, the Lazy H is designed like a two element yagi pointed
directly into the ground (go figure). There is some appeal to this
design being a curtain array (a topic for consideration), but then
what price in gain is being paid with the lower element hugging
ground. It couldn't possible radiate better than a similarly ground
hugging dipole (and yet all the praise seems to ignore this common
sense). The higher element certainly has a better chance, but then so
does a dipole at that altitude. So, how do you compare the two
designs? The simple dipole at the lowest element's position? or the
highest element's position? or split the difference?

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Michael

2011-05-11 12:19:47 UTC

Post by Richard Clark
On Tue, 10 May 2011 06:13:36 -0700 (PDT), Michael

Hi Michael,
Then, there you have it (in your last sentence).
With a quick google of "Lazy H antenna" I find two ways to build one
(the difference being in the twist of the shared drive line between
the top and bottom elements when fed at the bottom). There are plenty
to ways to erect it wrong - to someone's sense of propriety.
Now, as to the gain. Commons sense (divorced from the effects of
ground) tell us that if one dipole has X gain, then two with the best
of additive aspects could only have 2X gain (3 dB). To say you can
achieve more than 6dB is another doubling without adding anymore
radiator (and performed only by some unspecified magic).
More the issue seems to be reporting gain. The numbers seem to be dBi
figures that are then compared to a dipole with the presumption the
dipole gain could be expressed as 0dBi.
Lastly, the Lazy H is designed like a two element yagi pointed
directly into the ground (go figure). There is some appeal to this
design being a curtain array (a topic for consideration), but then
what price in gain is being paid with the lower element hugging
ground. It couldn't possible radiate better than a similarly ground
hugging dipole (and yet all the praise seems to ignore this common
sense). The higher element certainly has a better chance, but then so
does a dipole at that altitude. So, how do you compare the two
designs? The simple dipole at the lowest element's position? or the
highest element's position? or split the difference?
73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

It may be possible to get the performance of the Lazy H antenna up by
matching it at the antenna with a 1/4 matching stub, but clearly
running 100 feet of 450 ohm ladder line from the center of the Lazy H
back to an antenna tuner does not work very well on 10 meters. I
took the Lazy H down yesterday and put up the previously mentioned
extended double zepp using the same support ropes, and the extended
double zepp out performed the dipole on every A/B comparison in it's
preferred direction.

Michael Rawls
KS4HY

Richard Clark

2011-05-11 23:00:53 UTC

On Wed, 11 May 2011 05:19:47 -0700 (PDT), Michael

Post by Michael
It may be possible to get the performance of the Lazy H antenna up by
matching it at the antenna with a 1/4 matching stub, but clearly
running 100 feet of 450 ohm ladder line from the center of the Lazy H
back to an antenna tuner does not work very well on 10 meters. I
took the Lazy H down yesterday and put up the previously mentioned
extended double zepp using the same support ropes, and the extended
double zepp out performed the dipole on every A/B comparison in it's
preferred direction.

Hi Michael,

And for the double zepp, that merely confirms what is reasonable. By
virtue of its length and phase relationships, its investment above and
beyond the dipole tracks with gain.

However, matching stubs are not going to discover the missing gain for
the Lazy H.

As for 100 feet of 450 Ohm ladder line - nothing wrong with that, even
at 10 meters.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

n***@wt.net

2011-05-12 05:04:46 UTC

Post by Michael
Has anyone seen real world gain with the Lazy H on 10 meters verses a
dipole? My experience shows it consistently lags behind the 1/2 wave
dipole even through the Lazy H is 10+ feet higher than the dipole.
I also built an extended double zepp for 10 meters with a 450 matching
section to a 1:1 balun and then to coax, and the extended double zepp
consistently out performs the dipole in it's preferred direction.

I've never tried one, so can't say from experience.
But that you have to use extreme tuner settings to match
the system tells me you may be seeing a good amount of loss.
And then you have the issues Richard mentioned on top of that.
The coax fed dipole is very efficient. Very little system loss
involved. So even if it had less directional gain, it's possible
that gain could be offset by matching losses. Or even driven
negative if the loss was extreme. :(
Compare the two on a dead frequency just listening to noise.
If the H seems real quiet compared to the dipole, I would
suspect excess tuner loss. If they are about the same, may be
other issues.

The only phased dipoles I ever ran were parallel horizontal
dipoles. I would steer the pattern by changing the phasing.
Usually by adding lengths of feed line. It worked pretty well.
That was on 40m.. But as mentioned, there is only so much
blood that can be squeezed from two elements, even if configured
in an optimum manner, say as with a yagi or whatever. :/

Michael

2011-05-12 14:05:36 UTC

Post by n***@wt.net

I've never tried one, so can't say from experience.
But that you have to use extreme tuner settings to match
the system tells me you may be seeing a good amount of loss.
And then you have the issues Richard mentioned on top of that.
The coax fed dipole is very efficient. Very little system loss
involved. So even if it had less directional gain, it's possible
that gain could be offset by matching losses. Or even driven
negative if the loss was extreme. :(
Compare the two on a dead frequency just listening to noise.
If the H seems real quiet compared to the dipole, I would
suspect excess tuner loss. If they are about the same, may be
other issues.
The only phased dipoles I ever ran were parallel horizontal
dipoles. I would steer the pattern by changing the phasing.
Usually by adding lengths of feed line. It worked pretty well.
That was on 40m.. But as mentioned, there is only so much
blood that can be squeezed from two elements, even if configured
in an optimum manner, say as with a yagi or whatever. :/

I rebuilt the center fed Lazy H twice with different pieces of 450
ladder line, and I installed it in two different locations. I used two
different antenna tuners. I built it exactly as specified in the ARRL
antenna handbook. Both times the antenna exhibited a high SWR and
poor performance compared to a mono band dipole for the same frequency
and at about the same height. I suspect the underling problem may be
too many arm chair antenna experts plugging their designs in to
computer antenna modeling software, and not enough people actually
going out in the backyard and building the antenna and comparing it's
performance to a real world dipole for the same frequency. There are
many web pages touting the supposed gain of the Lazy H with EZNEC
plots posted as supporting evidence, but real world performance has
shown that it is consistently out performed by a plain old dipole.
I was able to make contacts with the Lazy H, and I did get some good
reports with it. However, when I switched to the plain old wire
dipole the dipole was consistently the stronger performer. I have not
tried the end fed Lazy H design with a 180 degree twist and the 1/4
wave matching stub yet.

Michael Rawls
KS4HY

Richard Clark

2011-05-12 16:42:35 UTC

On Thu, 12 May 2011 07:05:36 -0700 (PDT), Michael

Post by Michael
I suspect the underling problem may be
too many arm chair antenna experts plugging their designs in to
computer antenna modeling software, and not enough people actually
going out in the backyard and building the antenna and comparing it's
performance to a real world dipole for the same frequency.

Hi Michael,

All very true, but be careful of the conclusions you thinks this leads

Post by Michael
There are
many web pages touting the supposed gain of the Lazy H with EZNEC
plots posted as supporting evidence, but real world performance has
shown that it is consistently out performed by a plain old dipole.

The Lazy H, in professional installations known as Sterba Curtains,
are THE antenna of the big gun Shortwave Broadcasters. Engineers,
stations, and their backers looking at field data do not erect costly
antennas without good judgment. In the past, we have had contributors
here who have designed for these big guns.

Now, as to what you see as "evidence" on the Web in the form of EZNEC
software reports (something I've been using for nigh-on 20 years) has
to be looked at in the details, and the details that are significant:
1. The presence of ground
2. The quality of ground
3. The antenna elevation above ground
4. The presence of conductor loss
5. Transmission line specification
6. Transmission line drive
7. The load Z
8. The system gain (or loss)
at a minimum. That is a lot of detail to hold in the mind while
trying to compare two antennas, much less 3, 4, or 5.

One of the glaring mistakes between the outcome to this and "reality"
(and this undoubtedly conforms to your experience) is that the
placement of the source (transmitter) in software is vastly different
than the placement of the transmitter (source) in physical reality.

For instance, the twist in the line between elements is to enforce a
necessary phase relationship so that you can fee it at the bottom.
Otherwise you can go with a non-twist if you feed it in the middle.
The design varies in particulars there. So what? You can feed either
a twisted connection, or a non-twisted section in the middle; BUT for
the second version, the line back to the transmitter MUST BE dressed
AWAY from the middle of the interconnecting line. Proximity will
confound everything. Proximity for this second choice is almost
guaranteed in a casual installation where an EZNEC "schematic" of the
system offers only a blob called "source" in a spot of convenience
that does not exist in reality.

So, the long and short of it is:
Do not feed in the middle of the interconnecting line.
Observe proper phasing requirements.

You can perform your own EZNEC analysis using the free version. The
benefit of this is you can control all the variables, adjust items 1
through 6 in the list above, and you can replicate your experience.
Doing this will also reveal what you need to do to optimize your
antenna.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Michael

2011-05-12 18:38:38 UTC

Do not feed in the middle of the interconnecting line.
Observe proper phasing requirements.
You can perform your own EZNEC analysis using the free version. The
benefit of this is you can control all the variables, adjust items 1
through 6 in the list above, and you can replicate your experience.
Doing this will also reveal what you need to do to optimize your
antenna.
73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

The W8JI web page goes to considerable length to bash the end fed Lazy
H with the twist, but since the real world performance of the center
fed Lazy H is less than stellar I'll have to give it a try.

There is one thing the center fed Lazy H did better than the dipole
and the extended double zepp. When I applied RF to the center fed
Lazy H four of my outside motion sensor flood lights would come on. I
guess if I wanted to go outside at night I could just switch to the
Lazy H, key the mic, and save myself a trip to the light switch. ha
ha

W8JI bashing the end fed Lazy H with the twist
http://www.w8ji.com/curtain%20sterba%20USIA%20array.htm#Lazy_H_Antenna

-Michael

Richard Clark

2011-05-12 20:29:58 UTC

On Thu, 12 May 2011 11:38:38 -0700 (PDT), Michael

Post by Michael
The W8JI web page goes to considerable length to bash the end fed Lazy
H with the twist, but since the real world performance of the center
fed Lazy H is less than stellar I'll have to give it a try.

Hi Michael,

As I offered, feed at the bottom, and observe proper phase
relationships. This page you reference also makes a note of those
relationships being improper will point your radiation straight up,
and straight down. Go figure - this is quickly revealed by EZNEC.

Post by Michael
When I applied RF to the center fed
Lazy H four of my outside motion sensor flood lights would come on.

This is 100% rock-solid proof of Common Mode current on your
transmission line. This condition will cause extreme grief in trying
to match your transmitter to. It also skews the radiation/reception
lobes BIG-TIME.

Does this sound familiar?

The problem probably comes from your tuner's BalUn having a connection
to earth ground.

Solution to that (for all "balanced," horizontal antennas):
1. Use Coax.
2. Put a choke style (W2DU) BalUn at the antenna (ask about this).
3. Add a second choke a quarter wave away from the feed point.
OR
1. Fix the ground path inside your tuner (not as simple as it may
seem, unfortunately - in fact it can be an Herculean task - it may not
even be doable).
2. Obtain (purchase or build) the proper tuner.

Your antenna will then tune with vastly more grace, and you may even
find it performs much like common sense would expect. As I said
earlier, there is a world of experiential details that can kill an
EZNEC model's prediction - and it isn't the fault of EZNEC.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Michael

2011-05-30 18:13:56 UTC

Well I've worked with the center fed Lazy H antenna design on 10
meters for several few weeks now. I tried 1/2 wave spacing between
the top and bottom elements, 5/8th wave spacing between the top and
bottom elements, I put it up at 40 feet and 50 feet at the top wire, I
tried different lengths of 450 ohm feed-line, and this antenna
consistently under performs a 1/2 wave dipole cut for the same
frequency. A simple 1/2 wave dipole consistently out performs the
center fed version of Lazy H antenna even when the Lazy H is given a
20 foot height advantage over the lowly dipole. I even put up the Lazy
H in two completely different locations over 180 miles apart. I also
tried two completely different antenna tuners (Dentron MT-3000a and
Drake MN-75 with the 4:1 balun installed). Out of over 200 A/B test
the Lazy H antenna only out performed the dipole on one test with a
station in Texas just before the propagation faded out for the day,
The next day when the propagation was back I heard the same station on
the same frequency and the dipole out performed the Lazy H for the
rest of the day. I'm not sure what special propagation mode is
required for the Lazy H to have some gain through some pin hole
direction, but the version of the Lazy H center fed with 450 ohm
ladder line back to the antenna tuner is a complete failure. I even
re-built the antenna from scratch using a different piece 450 ladder
line for the inter connecting piece. I also verified the length of
each 1/2 wave section with a tape measure. I verified with an ohm
meter that the top left element was connected to the bottom left
element and the right top element was connected to the bottom right
element. I verified there was no unexpected connectivity between the
left and right elements, and I verified both sides of the ladder line
were connected back to the antenna tuner. I made sure there was no
twist in the ladder line connecting the top and bottom elements.
I would like to petition the ARRL to remove the center fed Lazy H
from the antenna handbook as it clearly does not work as specified. A
lowly mono band dipole on the same design frequency will consistently
out perform the center feed Lazy H even when the Lazy H is given a 20
foot height advantage on10 meters.
Before any of you reply with charts and graphs from EZNEC software,
turn off your computer, go out in the back yard, and actually build a
center fed Lazy H antenna with 450 ladder line all the way back to the
antenna tuner. Then do real world A/B comparisons with a plain old
mono band dipole cut for the same frequency, and you will find I am
telling the truth. The center fed Lazy H does not have any gain over
a 1/2 wave dipole broadside to the antenna. None.

Here is what you will fine if you actually build the center fed Lazy H
and compare it to a 1/2 wave mono band dipole cut for the same same
frequency;

1) Your tuner will have to use extreme setting to match the Lazy H.
2) In some instances the tuner will not be able to match the Lazy H
depending on the length of the ladder line feeding the antenna. You
may have to increase or decrease the length of the ladder line feeding
the Lazy H to get your antenna tuner to match it.
3) A 1/2 wave dipole will beat the Lazy H 99.99 percent of the time in
it's favored direction even if the Lazy H is given a 20 foot height
advantage over the dipole.
4) An extended double zepp with a 450 ohm matching section back to a
1:1 balun and then to 50 ohm coax cut for the same frequency and hung
from the same ropes previously used to support the Lazy H will blow
the Lazy H in the dirt.

In a nutshell, this antenna sucks!

Michael Rawls
KS4HY

Baron

2011-05-30 18:44:57 UTC

Post by Michael
Well I've worked with the center fed Lazy H antenna design on 10
meters for several few weeks now. I tried 1/2 wave spacing between
the top and bottom elements, 5/8th wave spacing between the top and
bottom elements, I put it up at 40 feet and 50 feet at the top wire, I
tried different lengths of 450 ohm feed-line, and this antenna
consistently under performs a 1/2 wave dipole cut for the same
frequency. A simple 1/2 wave dipole consistently out performs the
center fed version of Lazy H antenna even when the Lazy H is given a
20 foot height advantage over the lowly dipole. I even put up the Lazy
H in two completely different locations over 180 miles apart. I also
tried two completely different antenna tuners (Dentron MT-3000a and
Drake MN-75 with the 4:1 balun installed). Out of over 200 A/B test
the Lazy H antenna only out performed the dipole on one test with a
station in Texas just before the propagation faded out for the day,
The next day when the propagation was back I heard the same station on
the same frequency and the dipole out performed the Lazy H for the
rest of the day. I'm not sure what special propagation mode is
required for the Lazy H to have some gain through some pin hole
direction, but the version of the Lazy H center fed with 450 ohm
ladder line back to the antenna tuner is a complete failure. I even
re-built the antenna from scratch using a different piece 450 ladder
line for the inter connecting piece. I also verified the length of
each 1/2 wave section with a tape measure. I verified with an ohm
meter that the top left element was connected to the bottom left
element and the right top element was connected to the bottom right
element. I verified there was no unexpected connectivity between the
left and right elements, and I verified both sides of the ladder line
were connected back to the antenna tuner. I made sure there was no
twist in the ladder line connecting the top and bottom elements.
I would like to petition the ARRL to remove the center fed Lazy H
from the antenna handbook as it clearly does not work as specified. A
lowly mono band dipole on the same design frequency will consistently
out perform the center feed Lazy H even when the Lazy H is given a 20
foot height advantage on10 meters.
Before any of you reply with charts and graphs from EZNEC software,
turn off your computer, go out in the back yard, and actually build a
center fed Lazy H antenna with 450 ladder line all the way back to the
antenna tuner. Then do real world A/B comparisons with a plain old
mono band dipole cut for the same frequency, and you will find I am
telling the truth. The center fed Lazy H does not have any gain over
a 1/2 wave dipole broadside to the antenna. None.
Here is what you will fine if you actually build the center fed Lazy H
and compare it to a 1/2 wave mono band dipole cut for the same same
frequency;
1) Your tuner will have to use extreme setting to match the Lazy H.
2) In some instances the tuner will not be able to match the Lazy H
depending on the length of the ladder line feeding the antenna. You
may have to increase or decrease the length of the ladder line feeding
the Lazy H to get your antenna tuner to match it.
3) A 1/2 wave dipole will beat the Lazy H 99.99 percent of the time in
it's favored direction even if the Lazy H is given a 20 foot height
advantage over the dipole.
4) An extended double zepp with a 450 ohm matching section back to a
1:1 balun and then to 50 ohm coax cut for the same frequency and hung
from the same ropes previously used to support the Lazy H will blow
the Lazy H in the dirt.
In a nutshell, this antenna sucks!
Michael Rawls
KS4HY

Tried mounting it horizontally ?

--
Best Regards:
Baron.

walt

2011-05-30 21:48:45 UTC

Well I've worked with the center fed Lazy H antenna design on 10
meters for several few weeks now. I tried 1/2 wave spacing between
the top and bottom elements, 5/8th wave spacing between the top and
bottom elements, I put it up at 40 feet and 50 feet at the top wire, I
tried different lengths of 450 ohm feed-line, and this antenna
consistently under performs a 1/2 wave dipole cut for the same
frequency. A simple 1/2 wave dipole consistently out performs the
center fed version of Lazy H antenna even when the Lazy H is given a
20 foot height advantage over the lowly dipole. I even put up the Lazy
H in two completely different locations over 180 miles apart. I also
tried two completely different antenna tuners (Dentron MT-3000a and
Drake MN-75 with the 4:1 balun installed). Out of over 200 A/B test
the Lazy H antenna only out performed the dipole on one test with a
station in Texas just before the propagation faded out for the day,
The next day when the propagation was back I heard the same station on
the same frequency and the dipole out performed the Lazy H for the
rest of the day. I'm not sure what special propagation mode is
required for the Lazy H to have some gain through some pin hole
direction, but the version of the Lazy H center fed with 450 ohm
ladder line back to the antenna tuner is a complete failure. I even
re-built the antenna from scratch using a different piece 450 ladder
line for the inter connecting piece. I also verified the length of
each 1/2 wave section with a tape measure. I verified with an ohm
meter that the top left element was connected to the bottom left
element and the right top element was connected to the bottom right
element. I verified there was no unexpected connectivity between the
left and right elements, and I verified both sides of the ladder line
were connected back to the antenna tuner. I made sure there was no
twist in the ladder line connecting the top and bottom elements.
I would like to petition the ARRL to remove the center fed Lazy H
from the antenna handbook as it clearly does not work as specified. A
lowly mono band dipole on the same design frequency will consistently
out perform the center feed Lazy H even when the Lazy H is given a 20
foot height advantage on10 meters.
Before any of you reply with charts and graphs from EZNEC software,
turn off your computer, go out in the back yard, and actually build a
center fed Lazy H antenna with 450 ladder line all the way back to the
antenna tuner. Then do real world A/B comparisons with a plain old
mono band dipole cut for the same frequency, and you will find I am
telling the truth. The center fed Lazy H does not have any gain over
a 1/2 wave dipole broadside to the antenna. None.
Here is what you will fine if you actually build the center fed Lazy H
and compare it to a 1/2 wave mono band dipole cut for the same same
frequency;
1) Your tuner will have to use extreme setting to match the Lazy H.
2) In some instances the tuner will not be able to match the Lazy H
depending on the length of the ladder line feeding the antenna. You
may have to increase or decrease the length of the ladder line feeding
the Lazy H to get your antenna tuner to match it.
3) A 1/2 wave dipole will beat the Lazy H 99.99 percent of the time in
it's favored direction even if the Lazy H is given a 20 foot height
advantage over the dipole.
4) An extended double zepp with a 450 ohm matching section back to a
1:1 balun and then to 50 ohm coax cut for the same frequency and hung
from the same ropes previously used to support the Lazy H will blow
the Lazy H in the dirt.
In a nutshell, this antenna sucks!
Michael Rawls
KS4HY

Tried mounting it horizontally ?
--
Baron.

Hi Michael,

I'm sorry to hear you think the lazy-H sucks. I used one on 20m years
ago and it worked just fine--and no trouble in matching it with a
tuner.

However, I have a suggestion: Let's say you space the upper and lower
radiating elements by 180°, which is 1/2wl. If you now use 450-ohm
window line, the velocity factor for the line attaching the two
elements together makes the electrical length of the line greater than
1/2wl, which means the phasing between the upper and lower elements is
no longer correct, and therefore will not provide the expected gain.
I'm not sure how much phasing error that will produce, but it's an
issue you should consider. Correctly constructed, the lazy-H will
definitely out perform a 1/2wl dipole, so if it doesn't for you there
is sum ting definitely wong!

If you feed at the center of the line connecting the two radiating
elements the phasing will be correct regardless of the velocity
factor, because the length from the center feed point on the
connecting line will be the same from that point to each radiating
element. With this configuration of feeding don't put a twist in the
connecting line--the two radiating elements MUST be fed IN PHASE! If
they're fed out of phase the array will look like an Adcock direction-
finding antenna, with a deep null in the radiation pattern in the
broadside direction.

Just my thoughts,

Walt, W2DU

Michael

2011-05-31 01:31:17 UTC

Thanks for your input Walt, but I already thought of those things.
I definitely made the antenna correctly. According to the ARRL
handbook when center feeding the Lazy H increasing the spacing beyond
1/2 wave makes the gain go up until the spacing reaches 5/8ths wave.
The handbooks states 5.9 dbd gain for 1/2 wave spacing and 6.7 dbd for
5/8ths wave spacing. In the real world this antenna does not have any
gain over a 1/2 wave dipole when center fed with 450 ohm ladder line
all the way back to the tuner. The phasing was correct. On 14 MHz
where it becomes two stacked dipoles the SWR comes down and the
performance goes up, but on 28 MHz it consistently lags behind a
dipole. I rebuilt this antenna twice. If you actually go to the
trouble of making one for 10 meters, and compare it to a real world 28
Mhz 1/2 wave dipole, the Lazy H will fall far short of the predicted
gain.
I have been a ham since 1986. I wondered why I had heard so few
hams using a Lazy H, and the one time I recalled hearing one the
signal was weaker than the other hams using a dipole. I assumed at
the time that I must have been off the side of the other ham's Lazy H,
but after my real world test who knows.
I'm going to remove the center feed from the antenna this week, and
rework the Lazy H for end feed with a twist, a matching stub, and 1/2
wave spacing. Hopefully the end fed version of the Lazy H will live
up to it's text book gain. I'd really like to have that 6 dbd gain
along with the nulls off the sides,

Michael Rawls
KS4HY

Well I've worked with the center fed Lazy H antenna design on 10
meters for several few weeks now. I tried 1/2 wave spacing between
the top and bottom elements, 5/8th wave spacing between the top and
bottom elements, I put it up at 40 feet and 50 feet at the top wire, I
tried different lengths of 450 ohm feed-line, and this antenna
consistently under performs a 1/2 wave dipole cut for the same
frequency. A simple 1/2 wave dipole consistently out performs the
center fed version of Lazy H antenna even when the Lazy H is given a
20 foot height advantage over the lowly dipole. I even put up the Lazy
H in two completely different locations over 180 miles apart. I also
tried two completely different antenna tuners (Dentron MT-3000a and
Drake MN-75 with the 4:1 balun installed). Out of over 200 A/B test
the Lazy H antenna only out performed the dipole on one test with a
station in Texas just before the propagation faded out for the day,
The next day when the propagation was back I heard the same station on
the same frequency and the dipole out performed the Lazy H for the
rest of the day. I'm not sure what special propagation mode is
required for the Lazy H to have some gain through some pin hole
direction, but the version of the Lazy H center fed with 450 ohm
ladder line back to the antenna tuner is a complete failure. I even
re-built the antenna from scratch using a different piece 450 ladder
line for the inter connecting piece. I also verified the length of
each 1/2 wave section with a tape measure. I verified with an ohm
meter that the top left element was connected to the bottom left
element and the right top element was connected to the bottom right
element. I verified there was no unexpected connectivity between the
left and right elements, and I verified both sides of the ladder line
were connected back to the antenna tuner. I made sure there was no
twist in the ladder line connecting the top and bottom elements.
I would like to petition the ARRL to remove the center fed Lazy H
from the antenna handbook as it clearly does not work as specified. A
lowly mono band dipole on the same design frequency will consistently
out perform the center feed Lazy H even when the Lazy H is given a 20
foot height advantage on10 meters.
Before any of you reply with charts and graphs from EZNEC software,
turn off your computer, go out in the back yard, and actually build a
center fed Lazy H antenna with 450 ladder line all the way back to the
antenna tuner. Then do real world A/B comparisons with a plain old
mono band dipole cut for the same frequency, and you will find I am
telling the truth. The center fed Lazy H does not have any gain over
a 1/2 wave dipole broadside to the antenna. None.
Here is what you will fine if you actually build the center fed Lazy H
and compare it to a 1/2 wave mono band dipole cut for the same same
frequency;
1) Your tuner will have to use extreme setting to match the Lazy H.
2) In some instances the tuner will not be able to match the Lazy H
depending on the length of the ladder line feeding the antenna. You
may have to increase or decrease the length of the ladder line feeding
the Lazy H to get your antenna tuner to match it.
3) A 1/2 wave dipole will beat the Lazy H 99.99 percent of the time in
it's favored direction even if the Lazy H is given a 20 foot height
advantage over the dipole.
4) An extended double zepp with a 450 ohm matching section back to a
1:1 balun and then to 50 ohm coax cut for the same frequency and hung
from the same ropes previously used to support the Lazy H will blow
the Lazy H in the dirt.
In a nutshell, this antenna sucks!
Michael Rawls
KS4HY

Tried mounting it horizontally ?
--
Baron.

Hi Michael,
I'm sorry to hear you think the lazy-H sucks. I used one on 20m years
ago and it worked just fine--and no trouble in matching it with a
tuner.
However, I have a suggestion: Let's say you space the upper and lower
radiating elements by 180°, which is 1/2wl. If you now use 450-ohm
window line, the velocity factor for the line attaching the two
elements together makes the electrical length of the line greater than
1/2wl, which means the phasing between the upper and lower elements is
no longer correct, and therefore will not provide the expected gain.
I'm not sure how much phasing error that will produce, but it's an
issue you should consider. Correctly constructed, the lazy-H will
definitely out perform a 1/2wl dipole, so if it doesn't for you there
is sum ting definitely wong!
If you feed at the center of the line connecting the two radiating
elements the phasing will be correct regardless of the velocity
factor, because the length from the center feed point on the
connecting line will be the same from that point to each radiating
element. With this configuration of feeding don't put a twist in the
connecting line--the two radiating elements MUST be fed IN PHASE! If
they're fed out of phase the array will look like an Adcock direction-
finding antenna, with a deep null in the radiation pattern in the
broadside direction.
Just my thoughts,
Walt, W2DU

walt

2011-05-31 02:37:01 UTC

Well I've worked with the center fed Lazy H antenna design on 10
meters for several few weeks now. I tried 1/2 wave spacing between
the top and bottom elements, 5/8th wave spacing between the top and
bottom elements, I put it up at 40 feet and 50 feet at the top wire, I
tried different lengths of 450 ohm feed-line, and this antenna
consistently under performs a 1/2 wave dipole cut for the same
frequency. A simple 1/2 wave dipole consistently out performs the
center fed version of Lazy H antenna even when the Lazy H is given a
20 foot height advantage over the lowly dipole. I even put up the Lazy
H in two completely different locations over 180 miles apart. I also
tried two completely different antenna tuners (Dentron MT-3000a and
Drake MN-75 with the 4:1 balun installed). Out of over 200 A/B test
the Lazy H antenna only out performed the dipole on one test with a
station in Texas just before the propagation faded out for the day,
The next day when the propagation was back I heard the same station on
the same frequency and the dipole out performed the Lazy H for the
rest of the day. I'm not sure what special propagation mode is
required for the Lazy H to have some gain through some pin hole
direction, but the version of the Lazy H center fed with 450 ohm
ladder line back to the antenna tuner is a complete failure. I even
re-built the antenna from scratch using a different piece 450 ladder
line for the inter connecting piece. I also verified the length of
each 1/2 wave section with a tape measure. I verified with an ohm
meter that the top left element was connected to the bottom left
element and the right top element was connected to the bottom right
element. I verified there was no unexpected connectivity between the
left and right elements, and I verified both sides of the ladder line
were connected back to the antenna tuner. I made sure there was no
twist in the ladder line connecting the top and bottom elements.
I would like to petition the ARRL to remove the center fed Lazy H
from the antenna handbook as it clearly does not work as specified. A
lowly mono band dipole on the same design frequency will consistently
out perform the center feed Lazy H even when the Lazy H is given a 20
foot height advantage on10 meters.
Before any of you reply with charts and graphs from EZNEC software,
turn off your computer, go out in the back yard, and actually build a
center fed Lazy H antenna with 450 ladder line all the way back to the
antenna tuner. Then do real world A/B comparisons with a plain old
mono band dipole cut for the same frequency, and you will find I am
telling the truth. The center fed Lazy H does not have any gain over
a 1/2 wave dipole broadside to the antenna. None.
Here is what you will fine if you actually build the center fed Lazy H
and compare it to a 1/2 wave mono band dipole cut for the same same
frequency;
1) Your tuner will have to use extreme setting to match the Lazy H.
2) In some instances the tuner will not be able to match the Lazy H
depending on the length of the ladder line feeding the antenna. You
may have to increase or decrease the length of the ladder line feeding
the Lazy H to get your antenna tuner to match it.
3) A 1/2 wave dipole will beat the Lazy H 99.99 percent of the time in
it's favored direction even if the Lazy H is given a 20 foot height
advantage over the dipole.
4) An extended double zepp with a 450 ohm matching section back to a
1:1 balun and then to 50 ohm coax cut for the same frequency and hung
from the same ropes previously used to support the Lazy H will blow
the Lazy H in the dirt.
In a nutshell, this antenna sucks!
Michael Rawls
KS4HY

Tried mounting it horizontally ?
--
Baron.

Hi Michael,
I'm sorry to hear you think the lazy-H sucks. I used one on 20m years
ago and it worked just fine--and no trouble in matching it with a
tuner.
However, I have a suggestion: Let's say you space the upper and lower
radiating elements by 180°, which is 1/2wl. If you now use 450-ohm
window line, the velocity factor for the line attaching the two
elements together makes the electrical length of the line greater than
1/2wl, which means the phasing between the upper and lower elements is
no longer correct, and therefore will not provide the expected gain.
I'm not sure how much phasing error that will produce, but it's an
issue you should consider. Correctly constructed, the lazy-H will
definitely out perform a 1/2wl dipole, so if it doesn't for you there
is sum ting definitely wong!
If you feed at the center of the line connecting the two radiating
elements the phasing will be correct regardless of the velocity
factor, because the length from the center feed point on the
connecting line will be the same from that point to each radiating
element. With this configuration of feeding don't put a twist in the
connecting line--the two radiating elements MUST be fed IN PHASE! If
they're fed out of phase the array will look like an Adcock direction-
finding antenna, with a deep null in the radiation pattern in the
broadside direction.
Just my thoughts,
Walt, W2DU

One other thought, Michael, is that if you made the lazy-H with 1/2wl
spacing for 20m and then use it on 10m, the spacing is now 1wl. I
haven't seen any figures for that spacing, but isn't it possible that
with that spacing the gain might not be what you expect? Especially if
it works properly on 20m?

Walt

Michael

2011-05-31 02:56:48 UTC

Post by walt

Well I've worked with the center fed Lazy H antenna design on 10
meters for several few weeks now. I tried 1/2 wave spacing between
the top and bottom elements, 5/8th wave spacing between the top and
bottom elements, I put it up at 40 feet and 50 feet at the top wire, I
tried different lengths of 450 ohm feed-line, and this antenna
consistently under performs a 1/2 wave dipole cut for the same
frequency. A simple 1/2 wave dipole consistently out performs the
center fed version of Lazy H antenna even when the Lazy H is given a
20 foot height advantage over the lowly dipole. I even put up the Lazy
H in two completely different locations over 180 miles apart. I also
tried two completely different antenna tuners (Dentron MT-3000a and
Drake MN-75 with the 4:1 balun installed). Out of over 200 A/B test
the Lazy H antenna only out performed the dipole on one test with a
station in Texas just before the propagation faded out for the day,
The next day when the propagation was back I heard the same station on
the same frequency and the dipole out performed the Lazy H for the
rest of the day. I'm not sure what special propagation mode is
required for the Lazy H to have some gain through some pin hole
direction, but the version of the Lazy H center fed with 450 ohm
ladder line back to the antenna tuner is a complete failure. I even
re-built the antenna from scratch using a different piece 450 ladder
line for the inter connecting piece. I also verified the length of
each 1/2 wave section with a tape measure. I verified with an ohm
meter that the top left element was connected to the bottom left
element and the right top element was connected to the bottom right
element. I verified there was no unexpected connectivity between the
left and right elements, and I verified both sides of the ladder line
were connected back to the antenna tuner. I made sure there was no
twist in the ladder line connecting the top and bottom elements.
I would like to petition the ARRL to remove the center fed Lazy H
from the antenna handbook as it clearly does not work as specified. A
lowly mono band dipole on the same design frequency will consistently
out perform the center feed Lazy H even when the Lazy H is given a 20
foot height advantage on10 meters.
Before any of you reply with charts and graphs from EZNEC software,
turn off your computer, go out in the back yard, and actually build a
center fed Lazy H antenna with 450 ladder line all the way back to the
antenna tuner. Then do real world A/B comparisons with a plain old
mono band dipole cut for the same frequency, and you will find I am
telling the truth. The center fed Lazy H does not have any gain over
a 1/2 wave dipole broadside to the antenna. None.
Here is what you will fine if you actually build the center fed Lazy H
and compare it to a 1/2 wave mono band dipole cut for the same same
frequency;
1) Your tuner will have to use extreme setting to match the Lazy H.
2) In some instances the tuner will not be able to match the Lazy H
depending on the length of the ladder line feeding the antenna. You
may have to increase or decrease the length of the ladder line feeding
the Lazy H to get your antenna tuner to match it.
3) A 1/2 wave dipole will beat the Lazy H 99.99 percent of the time in
it's favored direction even if the Lazy H is given a 20 foot height
advantage over the dipole.
4) An extended double zepp with a 450 ohm matching section back to a
1:1 balun and then to 50 ohm coax cut for the same frequency and hung
from the same ropes previously used to support the Lazy H will blow
the Lazy H in the dirt.
In a nutshell, this antenna sucks!
Michael Rawls
KS4HY

Tried mounting it horizontally ?
--
Baron.

Hi Michael,
I'm sorry to hear you think the lazy-H sucks. I used one on 20m years
ago and it worked just fine--and no trouble in matching it with a
tuner.
However, I have a suggestion: Let's say you space the upper and lower
radiating elements by 180°, which is 1/2wl. If you now use 450-ohm
window line, the velocity factor for the line attaching the two
elements together makes the electrical length of the line greater than
1/2wl, which means the phasing between the upper and lower elements is
no longer correct, and therefore will not provide the expected gain.
I'm not sure how much phasing error that will produce, but it's an
issue you should consider. Correctly constructed, the lazy-H will
definitely out perform a 1/2wl dipole, so if it doesn't for you there
is sum ting definitely wong!
If you feed at the center of the line connecting the two radiating
elements the phasing will be correct regardless of the velocity
factor, because the length from the center feed point on the
connecting line will be the same from that point to each radiating
element. With this configuration of feeding don't put a twist in the
connecting line--the two radiating elements MUST be fed IN PHASE! If
they're fed out of phase the array will look like an Adcock direction-
finding antenna, with a deep null in the radiation pattern in the
broadside direction.
Just my thoughts,
Walt, W2DU

Hi Walt,
I initially made the Lazy H for 5/8th wave spacing on 10 meters.
When that did not work I reduced the spacing to 1/2 wave spacing on 10
meters. The 4 half wave elements are 1/2 waves on 10 meters. The
antenna design is really pretty simple. I did make some contacts with
this antenna and I received some good reports, but the dipole
consistently out performed the Lazy H, There was one contact in
Bermuda that said the Lazy H put in a stronger signal from South
Carolina, but there was alot of fading at the time. Even when the
Bermuda contact said the Lazy H put in the stronger signal the dipole
was receiving the stronger signal from Bermuda.

Michael

Irv Finkleman

2011-06-03 03:03:29 UTC

Walt, you continue to amaze me with your apparently wonderful and extensive
knowledge
with antennas and transmission lines. I look forward to finding threads
where you have
entered a discussion on some topic or other. I have been a Ham since 1958.
I've studied,
and read lots on the subject and always wished, but was never able to really
understand the
aforementioned topics to any degree. I've built and played around with many
antennas over the years.
Reading this newsgroup and many of the discussions has taught me a lot, but
your ability to relate various
aspects which might to me be seemingly unrelated, and put them into words
which are both meaningful
and understandable blows my mind. Your replies advising Michael on just
this thread alone have been
great.

I've been meaning to say this for years -- now here it is --
Thanks for being around and sharing your goodies with us all.

Irv
VE6BP

Post by Michael
Thanks for your input Walt, but I already thought of those things.
I definitely made the antenna correctly. According to the ARRL
handbook when center feeding the Lazy H increasing the spacing beyond
1/2 wave makes the gain go up until the spacing reaches 5/8ths wave.
The handbooks states 5.9 dbd gain for 1/2 wave spacing and 6.7 dbd for
5/8ths wave spacing. In the real world this antenna does not have any
gain over a 1/2 wave dipole when center fed with 450 ohm ladder line
all the way back to the tuner. The phasing was correct. On 14 MHz
where it becomes two stacked dipoles the SWR comes down and the
performance goes up, but on 28 MHz it consistently lags behind a
dipole. I rebuilt this antenna twice. If you actually go to the
trouble of making one for 10 meters, and compare it to a real world 28
Mhz 1/2 wave dipole, the Lazy H will fall far short of the predicted
gain.
I have been a ham since 1986. I wondered why I had heard so few
hams using a Lazy H, and the one time I recalled hearing one the
signal was weaker than the other hams using a dipole. I assumed at
the time that I must have been off the side of the other ham's Lazy H,
but after my real world test who knows.
I'm going to remove the center feed from the antenna this week, and
rework the Lazy H for end feed with a twist, a matching stub, and 1/2
wave spacing. Hopefully the end fed version of the Lazy H will live
up to it's text book gain. I'd really like to have that 6 dbd gain
along with the nulls off the sides,
Michael Rawls
KS4HY

Post by Michael
Well I've worked with the center fed Lazy H antenna design on 10
meters for several few weeks now. I tried 1/2 wave spacing between
the top and bottom elements, 5/8th wave spacing between the top and
bottom elements, I put it up at 40 feet and 50 feet at the top wire, I
tried different lengths of 450 ohm feed-line, and this antenna
consistently under performs a 1/2 wave dipole cut for the same
frequency. A simple 1/2 wave dipole consistently out performs the
center fed version of Lazy H antenna even when the Lazy H is given a
20 foot height advantage over the lowly dipole. I even put up the Lazy
H in two completely different locations over 180 miles apart. I also
tried two completely different antenna tuners (Dentron MT-3000a and
Drake MN-75 with the 4:1 balun installed). Out of over 200 A/B test
the Lazy H antenna only out performed the dipole on one test with a
station in Texas just before the propagation faded out for the day,
The next day when the propagation was back I heard the same station on
the same frequency and the dipole out performed the Lazy H for the
rest of the day. I'm not sure what special propagation mode is
required for the Lazy H to have some gain through some pin hole
direction, but the version of the Lazy H center fed with 450 ohm
ladder line back to the antenna tuner is a complete failure. I even
re-built the antenna from scratch using a different piece 450 ladder
line for the inter connecting piece. I also verified the length of
each 1/2 wave section with a tape measure. I verified with an ohm
meter that the top left element was connected to the bottom left
element and the right top element was connected to the bottom right
element. I verified there was no unexpected connectivity between the
left and right elements, and I verified both sides of the ladder line
were connected back to the antenna tuner. I made sure there was no
twist in the ladder line connecting the top and bottom elements.
I would like to petition the ARRL to remove the center fed Lazy H
from the antenna handbook as it clearly does not work as specified.
A
lowly mono band dipole on the same design frequency will
consistently
out perform the center feed Lazy H even when the Lazy H is given a 20
foot height advantage on10 meters.
Before any of you reply with charts and graphs from EZNEC software,
turn off your computer, go out in the back yard, and actually build a
center fed Lazy H antenna with 450 ladder line all the way back to the
antenna tuner. Then do real world A/B comparisons with a plain old
mono band dipole cut for the same frequency, and you will find I am
telling the truth. The center fed Lazy H does not have any gain over
a 1/2 wave dipole broadside to the antenna. None.
Here is what you will fine if you actually build the center fed Lazy H
and compare it to a 1/2 wave mono band dipole cut for the same same
frequency;
1) Your tuner will have to use extreme setting to match the Lazy H.
2) In some instances the tuner will not be able to match the Lazy H
depending on the length of the ladder line feeding the antenna. You
may have to increase or decrease the length of the ladder line feeding
the Lazy H to get your antenna tuner to match it.
3) A 1/2 wave dipole will beat the Lazy H 99.99 percent of the time in
it's favored direction even if the Lazy H is given a 20 foot height
advantage over the dipole.
4) An extended double zepp with a 450 ohm matching section back to a
1:1 balun and then to 50 ohm coax cut for the same frequency and hung
from the same ropes previously used to support the Lazy H will blow
the Lazy H in the dirt.
In a nutshell, this antenna sucks!
Michael Rawls
KS4HY

Tried mounting it horizontally ?
--
Baron.

Hi Michael,
I'm sorry to hear you think the lazy-H sucks. I used one on 20m years
ago and it worked just fine--and no trouble in matching it with a
tuner.
However, I have a suggestion: Let's say you space the upper and lower
radiating elements by 180°, which is 1/2wl. If you now use 450-ohm
window line, the velocity factor for the line attaching the two
elements together makes the electrical length of the line greater than
1/2wl, which means the phasing between the upper and lower elements is
no longer correct, and therefore will not provide the expected gain.
I'm not sure how much phasing error that will produce, but it's an
issue you should consider. Correctly constructed, the lazy-H will
definitely out perform a 1/2wl dipole, so if it doesn't for you there
is sum ting definitely wong!
If you feed at the center of the line connecting the two radiating
elements the phasing will be correct regardless of the velocity
factor, because the length from the center feed point on the
connecting line will be the same from that point to each radiating
element. With this configuration of feeding don't put a twist in the
connecting line--the two radiating elements MUST be fed IN PHASE! If
they're fed out of phase the array will look like an Adcock direction-
finding antenna, with a deep null in the radiation pattern in the
broadside direction.
Just my thoughts,
Walt, W2DU

Michael

2011-06-03 13:14:51 UTC

Post by Irv Finkleman
Walt, you continue to amaze me with your apparently wonderful and extensive
knowledge
with antennas and transmission lines. I look forward to finding threads
where you have
entered a discussion on some topic or other. I have been a Ham since 1958.
I've studied,
and read lots on the subject and always wished, but was never able to really
understand the
aforementioned topics to any degree. I've built and played around with many
antennas over the years.
Reading this newsgroup and many of the discussions has taught me a lot, but
your ability to relate various
aspects which might to me be seemingly unrelated, and put them into words
which are both meaningful
and understandable blows my mind. Your replies advising Michael on just
this thread alone have been
great.
I've been meaning to say this for years -- now here it is --
Thanks for being around and sharing your goodies with us all.
Irv
VE6BP

Post by Michael
Well I've worked with the center fed Lazy H antenna design on 10
meters for several few weeks now. I tried 1/2 wave spacing between
the top and bottom elements, 5/8th wave spacing between the top and
bottom elements, I put it up at 40 feet and 50 feet at the top wire, I
tried different lengths of 450 ohm feed-line, and this antenna
consistently under performs a 1/2 wave dipole cut for the same
frequency. A simple 1/2 wave dipole consistently out performs the
center fed version of Lazy H antenna even when the Lazy H is given a
20 foot height advantage over the lowly dipole. I even put up the Lazy
H in two completely different locations over 180 miles apart. I also
tried two completely different antenna tuners (Dentron MT-3000a and
Drake MN-75 with the 4:1 balun installed). Out of over 200 A/B test
the Lazy H antenna only out performed the dipole on one test with a
station in Texas just before the propagation faded out for the day,
The next day when the propagation was back I heard the same station on
the same frequency and the dipole out performed the Lazy H for the
rest of the day. I'm not sure what special propagation mode is
required for the Lazy H to have some gain through some pin hole
direction, but the version of the Lazy H center fed with 450 ohm
ladder line back to the antenna tuner is a complete failure. I even
re-built the antenna from scratch using a different piece 450 ladder
line for the inter connecting piece. I also verified the length of
each 1/2 wave section with a tape measure. I verified with an ohm
meter that the top left element was connected to the bottom left
element and the right top element was connected to the bottom right
element. I verified there was no unexpected connectivity between the
left and right elements, and I verified both sides of the ladder line
were connected back to the antenna tuner. I made sure there was no
twist in the ladder line connecting the top and bottom elements.
I would like to petition the ARRL to remove the center fed Lazy H
from the antenna handbook as it clearly does not work as specified.
A
lowly mono band dipole on the same design frequency will consistently
out perform the center feed Lazy H even when the Lazy H is given a 20
foot height advantage on10 meters.
Before any of you reply with charts and graphs from EZNEC software,
turn off your computer, go out in the back yard, and actually build a
center fed Lazy H antenna with 450 ladder line all the way back to the
antenna tuner. Then do real world A/B comparisons with a plain old
mono band dipole cut for the same frequency, and you will find I am
telling the truth. The center fed Lazy H does not have any gain over
a 1/2 wave dipole broadside to the antenna. None.
Here is what you will fine if you actually build the center fed Lazy H
and compare it to a 1/2 wave mono band dipole cut for the same same
frequency;
1) Your tuner will have to use extreme setting to match the Lazy H.
2) In some instances the tuner will not be able to match the Lazy H
depending on the length of the ladder line feeding the antenna. You
may have to increase or decrease the length of the ladder line feeding
the Lazy H to get your antenna tuner to match it.
3) A 1/2 wave dipole will beat the Lazy H 99.99 percent of the time in
it's favored direction even if the Lazy H is given a 20 foot height
advantage over the dipole.
4) An extended double zepp with a 450 ohm matching section back to a
1:1 balun and then to 50 ohm coax cut for the same frequency and hung
from the same ropes previously used to support the Lazy H will blow
the Lazy H in the dirt.
In a nutshell, this antenna sucks!
Michael Rawls
KS4HY

Tried mounting it horizontally ?
--
Baron.

Hi Michael,
I'm sorry to hear you think the lazy-H sucks. I used one on 20m years
ago and it worked just fine--and no trouble in matching it with a
tuner.
However, I have a suggestion: Let's say you space the upper and lower
radiating elements by 180ï¿½, which is 1/2wl. If you now use 450-ohm
window line, the velocity factor for the line attaching the two
elements together makes the electrical length of the line greater than
1/2wl, which means the phasing between the upper and lower elements is
no longer correct, and therefore will not provide the expected gain.
I'm not sure how much phasing error that will produce, but it's an
issue you should consider. Correctly constructed, the lazy-H will
definitely out perform a 1/2wl dipole, so if it doesn't for you there
is sum ting definitely wong!
If you feed at the center of the line connecting the two radiating
elements the phasing will be correct regardless of the velocity
factor, because the length from the center feed point on the
connecting line will be the same from that point to each radiating
element. With this configuration of feeding don't put a twist in the
connecting line--the two radiating elements MUST be fed IN PHASE! If
they're fed out of phase the array will look like an Adcock direction-
finding antenna, with a deep null in the radiation pattern in the
broadside direction.
Just my thoughts,
Walt, W2DU

This Lazy H is specifically made for 10 meters, the summer Sporadic E
season, and the steadily climbing solar flux. I almost never use 20
meters.

Michael
KS4HY

walt

2011-06-03 15:24:04 UTC

Post by Michael

Post by Michael
Well I've worked with the center fed Lazy H antenna design on 10
meters for several few weeks now. I tried 1/2 wave spacing between
the top and bottom elements, 5/8th wave spacing between the top and
bottom elements, I put it up at 40 feet and 50 feet at the top wire, I
tried different lengths of 450 ohm feed-line, and this antenna
consistently under performs a 1/2 wave dipole cut for the same
frequency. A simple 1/2 wave dipole consistently out performs the
center fed version of Lazy H antenna even when the Lazy H is given a
20 foot height advantage over the lowly dipole. I even put up the Lazy
H in two completely different locations over 180 miles apart. I also
tried two completely different antenna tuners (Dentron MT-3000a and
Drake MN-75 with the 4:1 balun installed). Out of over 200 A/B test
the Lazy H antenna only out performed the dipole on one test with a
station in Texas just before the propagation faded out for the day,
The next day when the propagation was back I heard the same station on
the same frequency and the dipole out performed the Lazy H for the
rest of the day. I'm not sure what special propagation mode is
required for the Lazy H to have some gain through some pin hole
direction, but the version of the Lazy H center fed with 450 ohm
ladder line back to the antenna tuner is a complete failure. I even
re-built the antenna from scratch using a different piece 450 ladder
line for the inter connecting piece. I also verified the length of
each 1/2 wave section with a tape measure. I verified with an ohm
meter that the top left element was connected to the bottom left
element and the right top element was connected to the bottom right
element. I verified there was no unexpected connectivity between the
left and right elements, and I verified both sides of the ladder line
were connected back to the antenna tuner. I made sure there was no
twist in the ladder line connecting the top and bottom elements.
I would like to petition the ARRL to remove the center fed Lazy H
from the antenna handbook as it clearly does not work as specified.
A
lowly mono band dipole on the same design frequency will consistently
out perform the center feed Lazy H even when the Lazy H is given a 20
foot height advantage on10 meters.
Before any of you reply with charts and graphs from EZNEC software,
turn off your computer, go out in the back yard, and actually build a
center fed Lazy H antenna with 450 ladder line all the way back to the
antenna tuner. Then do real world A/B comparisons with a plain old
mono band dipole cut for the same frequency, and you will find I am
telling the truth. The center fed Lazy H does not have any gain over
a 1/2 wave dipole broadside to the antenna. None.
Here is what you will fine if you actually build the center fed Lazy H
and compare it to a 1/2 wave mono band dipole cut for the same same
frequency;
1) Your tuner will have to use extreme setting to match the Lazy H.
2) In some instances the tuner will not be able to match the Lazy H
depending on the length of the ladder line feeding the antenna. You
may have to increase or decrease the length of the ladder line feeding
the Lazy H to get your antenna tuner to match it.
3) A 1/2 wave dipole will beat the Lazy H 99.99 percent of the time in
it's favored direction even if the Lazy H is given a 20 foot height
advantage over the dipole.
4) An extended double zepp with a 450 ohm matching section back to a
1:1 balun and then to 50 ohm coax cut for the same frequency and hung
from the same ropes previously used to support the Lazy H will blow
the Lazy H in the dirt.
In a nutshell, this antenna sucks!
Michael Rawls
KS4HY

Tried mounting it horizontally ?
--
Baron.

Hi Michael,
I'm sorry to hear you think the lazy-H sucks. I used one on 20m years
ago and it worked just fine--and no trouble in matching it with a
tuner.
However, I have a suggestion: Let's say you space the upper and lower
radiating elements by 180ï¿½, which is 1/2wl. If you now use 450-ohm
window line, the velocity factor for the line attaching the two
elements together makes the electrical length of the line greater than
1/2wl, which means the phasing between the upper and lower elements is
no longer correct, and therefore will not provide the expected gain.
I'm not sure how much phasing error that will produce, but it's an
issue you should consider. Correctly constructed, the lazy-H will
definitely out perform a 1/2wl dipole, so if it doesn't for you there
is sum ting definitely wong!
If you feed at the center of the line connecting the two radiating
elements the phasing will be correct regardless of the velocity
factor, because the length from the center feed point on the
connecting line will be the same from that point to each radiating
element. With this configuration of feeding don't put a twist in the
connecting line--the two radiating elements MUST be fed IN PHASE! If
they're fed out of phase the array will look like an Adcock direction-
finding antenna, with a deep null in the radiation pattern in the
broadside direction.
Just my thoughts,
Walt, W2DU

This Lazy H is specifically made for 10 meters, the summer Sporadic E
season, and the steadily climbing solar flux. I almost never use 20
meters.
Michael
KS4HY

Thank you Irv, for the nice words you posted about me. I was fortunate
to have been an antenna engineer with RCA for 31 years, where I was
surrounded with professionals who were in the top echelon of antenna
developers. I've had no other formal training in engineering other
than my close association with them, and studying their voluminous
text books. Learning as a ham (78 yrs continually licensed since 1933)
is clearly the root of my engineering knowledge.

Do you have a copy of my book, "Reflections--Transmission Lines and
Antennas? If not, some of the chapters from the book are available for
downloading at my web page at www.w2du.com.

Thanks again, Irv,

Walt, W2DU

Irv Finkleman

2011-06-04 01:06:03 UTC

Do you have a copy of my book, "Reflections--Transmission Lines and
Antennas? If not, some of the chapters from the book are available for
downloading at my web page at www.w2du.com.

Thanks again, Irv,

Walt, W2DU

Wow! Impressive resume Walt. It's funny you should ask about 'Refections'.
I never had the book, but did download
and study the available chapters from your website.

Due to some pretty serious illness and surgery during the past two years I
had to sell my house. At the same time my
prognosis was so limited that I gave away all my equipment, tools, parts,
and books -- most of it to other hams as well
as our local radio club. I had more antenna books than anything. We never
dreamed I would be in condition to operate
a station again and it wasn't easy giving up one of my great loves in
life -- HAM RADIO!

As per Murphy's Laws, my recovery was remarkable, but I had to move into a
seniors residence where nursing
assistance was available, and since then I have had restorative surgery and
am in pretty good condition again.
I am now ready to resume my participation in the hobby, but in a very
downsized manner. I just bought a
Yaesu FT-817ND (an all band/mode QRP rig, the only rig I ever bought brand
new) and am
in the process of building a magnetic loop antenna which I can cleverly
conceal on my balcony.
Basically it is a very simple project, considering the fact that I will be
operating either 5w or 2.5w
and do not have to go overboard on a HV tuning cap. I've always
been a low power operator, knowing that with a little operating skill, and a
'decent' antenna you don't need
a lot to have a bundle of fun. The snow has just cleared from my area
(Calgary, Alberta) and I should be up
and operating pretty soon (as soon as I can concoct a simple insulated
coupling between the tuning cap
drive motor and the capacitor). The principles of the magnetic loop are
simple, and I have been able to
download lots of good hints and kinks over the net -- more than I need.

So I'm a long way from dead, and looking forward to resuming the hobby which
has kept me fully
occupied for many years.

I've helped many fellow hams with invisible antennas -- now it's my turn and
I'm approaching it
with a very optomistic outlook. Starting over is not difficult -- once you
have the knowledge, the
rest is easy. Maybe we'll meet around the bands someday.

Thanks again for all you've given to the hobby! Ohm's Law was easy, but we
needed folks like
you for the antenna understanding.

Irv, VE6BP

Wond

2011-05-31 15:07:52 UTC

I sort of think also, the Lazy H (think colinear?) should be fed and
phased with 75 ohm line.

On Mon, 30 May 2011 14:48:45 -0700, walt wrote:

If you feed at the center of the line connecting the two radiating
elements the phasing will be correct regardless of the velocity
factor, because the length from the center feed point on the
connecting line will be the same from that point to each radiating
element. With this configuration of feeding don't put a twist in the
connecting line--the two radiating elements MUST be fed IN PHASE! If
they're fed out of phase the array will look like an Adcock direction-
finding antenna, with a deep null in the radiation pattern in the
broadside direction.

Just my thoughts,

Walt, W2DU

walt

2011-05-31 17:07:01 UTC

I sort of think also, the Lazy H (think colinear?) should be fed and
phased with 75 ohm line.
If you feed at the center of the line connecting the two radiating
elements the phasing will be correct regardless of the velocity
factor, because the length from the center feed point on the
connecting line will be the same from that point to each radiating
element. With this configuration of feeding don't put a twist in the
connecting line--the two radiating elements MUST be fed IN PHASE! If
they're fed out of phase the array will look like an Adcock direction-
finding antenna, with a deep null in the radiation pattern in the
broadside direction.
Just my thoughts,
Walt, W2DU

Another point to consider, Mark, is that the azimuth beam width is
narrower with the lazy-H than that of the dipole. So perhaps the
apparent lower signal level is in directions off the side of the
radiation pattern, where one would expect the signal level to be lower
than that of the dipole at the same angle.

Walt

Michael

2011-06-01 03:45:17 UTC

Post by walt

I "MAY" have figured out what was wrong with the Lazy H. This is a
tentative post.

The Lazy H is located in Charleston, South Carolina and it is
broadside to Southern California. It should be aiming just barley
north of West and just barely south of East. The first clue came when
a station in the Caribbean gave me a 20 over S9 report. That
direction should be in a null spot. The propagation has been coming
in from Texas, Southern California, Central and South America, and the
Northeast (New York, Mass, New Jersey, etc). Well today the
propagation rolled in from the North west, and I saw a signal increase
from a station in Iowa when I compared the Lazy H to the dipole. That
is not the direction the Lazy H is facing, so it occurred to me there
might be something skewing the propagation angle of the antenna to the
north west and south east. Since there has not been any propagation
from the North/west direction until today I had nothing to test it
against. I went outside and noticed the 450 ohm feed line was not
coming away from the Lazy H at a 90 degree angle. It was more of a
45 degree angle. I added some length to the 450 ohm ladder line, and
then repositioned the feed line to come away from the Lazy H at a 90
degree angle. When I went back to test the antenna it was beginning
to show gain in the intended direction. Also the tuner had an easier
time matching the antenna. I may have to play with it some more, but
I may have found the missing 5.9 dbd gain with 1/2 wave spacing. I'm
going to keep my fingers crossed and hope I don't have to retract this
post.

Michael Rawls
KS4HY

Michael

2011-06-02 18:27:12 UTC

Post by walt

I "MAY" have figured out what was wrong with the Lazy H. This is a
tentative post.
The Lazy H is located in Charleston, South Carolina and it is
broadside to Southern California. It should be aiming just barley
north of West and just barely south of East. The first clue came when
a station in the Caribbean gave me a 20 over S9 report. That
direction should be in a null spot. The propagation has been coming
in from Texas, Southern California, Central and South America, and the
Northeast (New York, Mass, New Jersey, etc). Well today the
propagation rolled in from the North west, and I saw a signal increase
from a station in Iowa when I compared the Lazy H to the dipole. That
is not the direction the Lazy H is facing, so it occurred to me there
might be something skewing the propagation angle of the antenna to the
north west and south east. Since there has not been any propagation
from the North/west direction until today I had nothing to test it
against. I went outside and noticed the 450 ohm feed line was not
coming away from the Lazy H at a 90 degree angle. It was more of a
45 degree angle. I added some length to the 450 ohm ladder line, and
then repositioned the feed line to come away from the Lazy H at a 90
degree angle. When I went back to test the antenna it was beginning
to show gain in the intended direction. Also the tuner had an easier
time matching the antenna. I may have to play with it some more, but
I may have found the missing 5.9 dbd gain with 1/2 wave spacing. I'm
going to keep my fingers crossed and hope I don't have to retract this
post.
Michael Rawls
KS4HY

Just a quick update. I am seeing some gain with the Lazy H now that
the feed line exiting the antenna has been moved to a 90 degree angle,
but I don't think I am seeing the 5.9 dbd gain promised in the ARRL
Antenna Handbook. I would guess it is more around 3 or 4 dbd gain
with 1/2 wave length elements and 1/2 wave spacing between the top and
bottom elements. It seems like alot of trouble to go to when an
extended double zepp at the same height as top wire of the Lazy H
might do just as well if not better. The plus is the Lazy H may have
cleaner nulls off the sides which is helping with the occasional AM
carriers that are coming out of Central and South America.

Michael

tom

2011-06-03 02:48:31 UTC

Post by Michael
Just a quick update. I am seeing some gain with the Lazy H now that
the feed line exiting the antenna has been moved to a 90 degree angle,
but I don't think I am seeing the 5.9 dbd gain promised in the ARRL
Antenna Handbook. I would guess it is more around 3 or 4 dbd gain
with 1/2 wave length elements and 1/2 wave spacing between the top and
bottom elements. It seems like alot of trouble to go to when an
extended double zepp at the same height as top wire of the Lazy H
might do just as well if not better. The plus is the Lazy H may have
cleaner nulls off the sides which is helping with the occasional AM
carriers that are coming out of Central and South America.
Michael

Just curious, how are you measuring this -2 to -3 dB difference you are
referencing?

tom
K0TAR

Michael

2011-06-03 13:10:34 UTC

I'm definitely using a less than scientific method, so don't take my
estimation as solid proof. It is just a guess at best.

Michael

Post by tom

Just curious, how are you measuring this -2 to -3 dB difference you are
referencing?
tom
K0TAR

Ralph Mowery

2011-05-31 02:57:40 UTC

Post by Baron
Tried mounting it horizontally ?
--
Baron.

I looked at that antenna in a handbook years ago. Could not tell from that
how it is mounted. Do you mount the elements one over the top of the other,
or do you mount them sideways like a 2 element horizontal beam ?

Michael

2011-05-31 14:14:18 UTC

Post by Baron
Tried mounting it horizontally ?
--
Baron.

Yes. It is mounted horizontally.

Michael

2011-06-04 14:04:28 UTC

Final verdict on the center fed Lazy H antenna for 10 meters...

I really wanted to like this antenna. I really wanted it to work as
stated in the various handbooks. I have checked and re-checked the
measurements, and I have double checked the connectivity to make sure
the top and bottom elements were being fed in phase. The bottom left
element was connected to the top left element. The bottom right
element was connected to the top right element. I have done countless
A/B/C test with a dipole, an extended double zepp, and the Lazy H all
broadside to the same direction on 10 meters. This antenna was
specifically cut for 10 meters, and it was installed for horizontal
polarization as shown in the ARRL handbook at heights of 40 feet and
50 feet at the top wire. I double checked everything, but the final
verdict is not what I had hoped.

Here it is;

In the real world on 10 meters the Lazy H antenna with four half wave
elements on 10 meters (two collinear elements on top and two collinear
elements on the bottom), half wave spacing between the top and bottom
horizontal elements, center fed with 450 ladder line all the way back
to the antenna tuner, using a 450 ohm ladder line phasing line to
connect the top and bottom elements with no twist was consistently out
performed by a 10 meter extended double zepp facing the same direction
even when the Lazy H antenna was given a 10 foot height advantage over
the extended double zepp. On many occasions the Lazy H was also out
performed by the 10 meter dipole dipole. I have not tried the end fed
Lazy H design with the 1/4 wave matching stub and the 180 degree twist
in the phasing line.

On a positive note, the extended double zepp antenna with a 450 ohm
matching section down to a 1:1 balun and then 50 ohm coax is a solid
performer, and it consistently out performs a dipole and the Lazy H
broadside to the antenna.

Michael Rawls
KS4HY

John Smith

2011-06-04 14:30:17 UTC

Post by Michael
...
On a positive note, the extended double zepp antenna with a 450 ohm
matching section down to a 1:1 balun and then 50 ohm coax is a solid
performer, and it consistently out performs a dipole and the Lazy H
broadside to the antenna.
Michael Rawls
KS4HY

You are "matching" 450 ohm line to 50 ohm coax thru a 1:1 balun?

Where is the matchbox/tuner located?

--
Regards,
JS
“The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain
the people, it’s an instrument for the people to restrain the
government.” -- Patrick Henry

John Smith

2011-06-04 14:46:24 UTC

Post by John Smith

You are "matching" 450 ohm line to 50 ohm coax thru a 1:1 balun?
Where is the matchbox/tuner located?

Never mind, should have read your post closer, you are claiming to have
already handled it in the "450 ohm matching section."

--
Regards,
JS
“The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain
the people, it’s an instrument for the people to restrain the
government.” -- Patrick Henry

Richard Clark

2011-06-04 15:42:50 UTC

On Sat, 4 Jun 2011 07:04:28 -0700 (PDT), Michael

Post by Michael
but the final
verdict is not what I had hoped.
to the antenna tuner

which through its ground connection unbalances the Lazy H.

For the entire duration of your discussion, I've seen no treatment for
common mode problems that you have described by various symptoms in
the past. Your complaint of poor performance is a chief indicator.

Other indications have ranged variably from glaring beyond that to not
apparent yet remaining a problem still, as is obvious by the poor gain
performance for all variations.

Post by Michael
a 1:1 balun and then 50 ohm coax is a solid
performer

provided the BalUn is a W2DU.

Your problem is NOT the antenna!

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Michael

2011-06-05 01:10:13 UTC

Post by Richard Clark
On Sat, 4 Jun 2011 07:04:28 -0700 (PDT), Michael

Post by Michael
but the final
verdict is not what I had hoped.

probably because it is unbalanced by being connected:>to the antenna tuner
which through its ground connection unbalances the Lazy H.
For the entire duration of your discussion, I've seen no treatment for
common mode problems that you have described by various symptoms in
the past. Your complaint of poor performance is a chief indicator.
Other indications have ranged variably from glaring beyond that to not
apparent yet remaining a problem still, as is obvious by the poor gain
performance for all variations.
You already have the solution in the other antenna:> a 1:1 balun and then 50 ohm coax is a solid

Post by Michael
performer

provided the BalUn is a W2DU.
Your problem is NOT the antenna!
73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

The tuners I have both have built in baluns. After I took down the
Lazy H I put up a delta loop with 300 ohm twin lead back to the same
balanced line tuner connections. The delta loop out performed the
dipole by a hair, but the delta loop has a height advantage over the
dipole.

I have some other baluns lying around. I suppose I could hook the
450 ladder line to one of those baluns and then connect a coax jumper
between it and the antenna tuner and try it. It seems like they may
be W2AU baluns. I bought them back in the 1990s, but I have not looked
at the labels in awhile.

I still may try the end fed Lazy H with the twist.

Michael

Michael

2011-06-05 02:38:55 UTC

Post by Richard Clark
On Sat, 4 Jun 2011 07:04:28 -0700 (PDT), Michael

Post by Michael
but the final
verdict is not what I had hoped.

probably because it is unbalanced by being connected:>to the antenna tuner
which through its ground connection unbalances theLazyH.
For the entire duration of your discussion, I've seen no treatment for
common mode problems that you have described by various symptoms in
the past. Your complaint of poor performance is a chief indicator.
Other indications have ranged variably from glaring beyond that to not
apparent yet remaining a problem still, as is obvious by the poor gain
performance for all variations.
You already have the solution in the other antenna:> a 1:1 balun and then 50 ohm coax is a solid

Post by Michael
performer

provided the BalUn is a W2DU.
Your problem is NOT the antenna!
73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

The tuners I have both have built in baluns. After I took down theLazyH I put up a delta loop with 300 ohm twin lead back to the same
balanced line tuner connections. The delta loop out performed the
dipole by a hair, but the delta loop has a height advantage over the
dipole.
I have some other baluns lying around. I suppose I could hook the
450 ladder line to one of those baluns and then connect a coax jumper
between it and the antenna tuner and try it. It seems like they may
be W2AU baluns. I bought them back in the 1990s, but I have not looked
at the labels in awhile.
I still may try the end fedLazyHwith the twist.
Michael

I just remembered most of those external baluns are 1:1 baluns. I do
have one external commercial 4:1 balun, and one 4:1 balun I hand wound
from a schematic in one of my antenna books.

-Michael

Richard Clark

2011-06-05 17:37:21 UTC

On Sat, 4 Jun 2011 19:38:55 -0700 (PDT), Michael

Post by Michael
I just remembered most of those external baluns are 1:1 baluns. I do
have one external commercial 4:1 balun, and one 4:1 balun I hand wound
from a schematic in one of my antenna books.

Hi Michael,

The odds are that the BalUns you wound are similar to the ones in your
tuner(s) - and they will NOT do the job properly.

By properly, the BalUn MUST choke the line. This comes for free with
the W2DU style, as there is only one way to build one, the right way.

The distinction is between what are called voltage BalUns and current
BalUns. Frequently, web sites that purport to know the difference
DON'T know the difference. The W2DU BalUn is an example of a current
BalUn with a 1:1 ratio. It is also a choke. Very few BalUns that are
published on the web are current BalUns. Similarly, very few have the
necessary choking action.

One solution is to feed a W2DU BalUn, that in turn feeds any BalUn
with the required transformation ratio, that then in turn feeds the
antenna. The W2DU BalUn takes care of the proper choking action
needed. However, this may not work with the internal BalUns found in
nearly every tuner on the market. (How does one insert the choke to
an internal BalUn?) Problem here is that if there is ANY path to
ground that goes around the choke, you have just made it an exercise
in futility.

And lastly, you have described a number of problems with the antenna
that were both inside and outside of the focus of gain. ALL were
functions of Common Mode currents. Choking the line is the best
all-around solution.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Michael

2011-06-07 01:39:09 UTC

Update on the 10 meter Lazy H...

I did a little reading on ladder line at the web page below;

http://www.athensarc.org/ladder.asp

and then in the ARRL handbook.

With the knowledge gained form the two sources I made the following
changes;

I changed the length of the 450 ohm ladder line feeding the antenna
to make sure it was not a multiple of a 1/2 wavelength at 10 meters,
and the antenna tuner was able to tune the Lazy H more easily. I also
suspect there may be a problem with the balun in the Dentron MT-3000a
tuner. When I hook up the Drake MN-75 tuner with the internal 4:1
balun I hand wound myself I am seeing gain from the Lazy H antenna in
it's preferred direction compared to the dipole, but when I switch to
the Dentron MT-3000a I am not seeing gain when I compare the dipole to
the Lazy H. I think I am going to remove the factory balun from the
Dentron MT-3000a and hand wind a new 4:1 balun for it.

Michael Rawls
KS4HY

Michael

2011-06-07 12:53:45 UTC

Update on the 10 meterLazyH...
I did a little reading on ladder line at the web page below;
http://www.athensarc.org/ladder.asp
and then in the ARRL handbook.
With the knowledge gained form the two sources I made the following
changes;
I changed the length of the 450 ohm ladder line feeding theantenna
to make sure it was not a multiple of a 1/2 wavelength at 10 meters,
and theantennatuner was able to tune theLazyHmore easily. I also
suspect there may be a problem with the balun in the Dentron MT-3000a
tuner. When I hook up the Drake MN-75 tuner with the internal 4:1
balun I hand wound myself I am seeing gain from theLazyHantennain
it's preferred direction compared to the dipole, but when I switch to
the Dentron MT-3000a I am not seeing gain when I compare the dipole to
theLazyH. I think I am going to remove the factory balun from the
Dentron MT-3000a and hand wind a new 4:1 balun for it.
Michael Rawls
KS4HY

I did some searching on the Internet concerning the use of the Dentron
MT-3000a tuner and using the balun for 450 ohm ladder line on10
meters, and I found the following post from K8JS on a eham.net review
of the Dentron MT-3000a tuner..

Below is K8JS's post on eham.net...

======================================
K8JS Rating: 3/5 Feb 22, 2004 00:59 Send this review to a friend
Basically Is OK, but not the best Tuner Out There Time owned: more
than 12 months

...<snip>...

I also ran balanced feedline antennas at that time, and discovered
that the built-in balun was badly UN-balanced at it's "balanced" port
for 10 thru 20 meters.
To help remedy that problem I had to replace it with a physically
larger, and much superior "Super Balun" from Palomar that barely
physically fit within the tuner's chassis.
So - with correcting the coil's grounded end making a better contact
to the chassis, replacing the unit's inferior balun, and gingerly
operating those flakey rectangular switched, I was able to continue to
use that otherwise very nice tuner for several more years. ---John,
K8JS

==================================

Well, looks like it is time to replace the stock Dentron MT-3000a 4:1
balun with a home made one.

Michael Rawls
KS4HY

Michael

2011-06-08 12:54:49 UTC

Woohoo! The center fed Lazy H is now working with gain in it's most
favored directions, and it is now consistently out performing the
dipole. I had already pointed the extended double zepp in another
direction, so I'm not sure if the Lazy H is out performing the
extended double zepp.

Below are the following real world lessons I learned from building the
Lazy H wire antenna in the real world. Hopefully it will save future
builders some time.

1) Make sure the 450 ohm ladder line exiting the center of the Lazy H
back to the antenna tuner goes away from the Lazy H at a 90 degree
angle for at least a full wavelength or more or it will skew the
radiation pattern of the antenna.

2) Cut the 450 ohm ladder line going back to the tuner to a length
that is NOT a multiple of a half wavelength on the frequency (or
frequencies) you plan to use the antenna on. In my case since I only
plan to use the Lazy H on 10 meters I found the length required to get
back to the radio room, and then I added length until the total length
landed in between multiples of a 1/2 wave at the antenna design
frequency. The antenna tuner was more easily able to tune the Lazy H
once I did that. When I measured the total length of the ladder line
feeding the Lazy H I included one half of the phasing line that
connected the top and bottom elements.

3) Do not allow sag in the ladder line back to the antenna tuner where
the exiting ladder line falls close to the bottom half of the 450 ohm
phasing line that is used to connect the top and bottom of the Lazy H
or the SWR reading will go up noticeably.

4) The setting on the antenna tuner where a lowest SWR is tuned may
not be the same setting where the receiver receives the strongest
signal from the antenna. This quirk may be specific to my Dentron
MT-3000a tuner and it's internal factory balun.

5) Following number 2 above will probably avoid this situation, but if
your antenna tuner is unable to match the Lazy H at any setting change
the length of the ladder line feeding the Lazy H.

Michael Rawls
KS4HY

J. C. Mc Laughlin

2011-06-08 14:16:26 UTC

Dear Michael KS4HY: Thanks for the up-date. You have indicated some ways
to deal with the issues you encountered.

To emphasize what others have said: The issues you encountered would have
been attenuated with common-mode chokes being used at feed-points (and
perhaps at strategic places farther along).

73, Mac N8TT

"Michael" wrote in message news:2b29207c-71ea-42ed-90fd-***@e21g2000vbz.googlegroups.com...

Woohoo! The center fed Lazy H is now working with gain in it's most
favored directions, and it is now consistently out performing the
dipole. I had already pointed the extended double zepp in another
direction, so I'm not sure if the Lazy H is out performing the
extended double zepp.

Below are the following real world lessons I learned from building the
Lazy H wire antenna in the real world. Hopefully it will save future
builders some time.

1) Make sure the 450 ohm ladder line exiting the center of the Lazy H
back to the antenna tuner goes away from the Lazy H at a 90 degree
angle for at least a full wavelength or more or it will skew the
radiation pattern of the antenna.

2) Cut the 450 ohm ladder line going back to the tuner to a length
that is NOT a multiple of a half wavelength on the frequency (or
frequencies) you plan to use the antenna on. In my case since I only
plan to use the Lazy H on 10 meters I found the length required to get
back to the radio room, and then I added length until the total length
landed in between multiples of a 1/2 wave at the antenna design
frequency. The antenna tuner was more easily able to tune the Lazy H
once I did that. When I measured the total length of the ladder line
feeding the Lazy H I included one half of the phasing line that
connected the top and bottom elements.

3) Do not allow sag in the ladder line back to the antenna tuner where
the exiting ladder line falls close to the bottom half of the 450 ohm
phasing line that is used to connect the top and bottom of the Lazy H
or the SWR reading will go up noticeably.

4) The setting on the antenna tuner where a lowest SWR is tuned may
not be the same setting where the receiver receives the strongest
signal from the antenna. This quirk may be specific to my Dentron
MT-3000a tuner and it's internal factory balun.

5) Following number 2 above will probably avoid this situation, but if
your antenna tuner is unable to match the Lazy H at any setting change
the length of the ladder line feeding the Lazy H.

Michael Rawls
KS4HY

J. C. Mc Laughlin
Michigan U.S.A.
Home: ***@Power-Net.Net

Michael

2011-06-12 10:36:29 UTC

K8JS was correct about the factory balun in the Dentron MT-3000a not
working correctly on 10 meters (see below). I by-passed the built in
balun by using a 3 foot jumper out one of the other antenna coax jacks
and then connecting the 450 ohm ladder line to the external 1:1
balun. The Lazy H antenna lit up! Now it is performing like I was
expecting, and the missing gain is definitely there. I initially tried
an external 4:1 balun, but since I had previously trimmed the 450 ohm
ladder line to get a better match to the tuner I wound up getting a
better match with an external 1:1 balun. Now I need need to replace
the internal 4:1 balun in the Dentron MT-3000a, so I can get my open
wire antenna position back.

I have to retract my previous statement when I said the Lazy H antenna
sucks. They rock. It is the built in factory 4:1 balun in the
Dentron MT-3000a that sucks on 10 meters. With the new balun the Lazy
H antenna is performing beautifully. I already built a second Lazy H,
and I have it pointing in a different direction. The side rejection
on those antennas is pretty impressive, and both Lazy H antennas are
now blowing away the rotatable dipole in their favored direction.

Thank for all the help,

Michael Rawls
KS4HY

Update on the 10 meterLazyH...
I did a little reading on ladder line at the web page below;
http://www.athensarc.org/ladder.asp
and then in the ARRL handbook.
With the knowledge gained form the two sources I made the following
changes;
I changed the length of the 450 ohm ladder line feeding theantenna
to make sure it was not a multiple of a 1/2 wavelength at 10 meters,
and theantennatuner was able to tune theLazyHmore easily. I also
suspect there may be a problem with the balun in theDentronMT-3000a
tuner. When I hook up the Drake MN-75 tuner with the internal 4:1
balun I hand wound myself I am seeing gain from theLazyHantennain
it's preferred direction compared to the dipole, but when I switch to
theDentronMT-3000a I am not seeing gain when I compare the dipole to
theLazyH. I think I am going to remove the factory balun from the
DentronMT-3000a and hand wind a new 4:1 balun for it.
Michael Rawls
KS4HY

I did some searching on the Internet concerning the use of theDentron
MT-3000a tuner and using the balun for 450 ohm ladder line on10
meters, and I found the following post from K8JS on a eham.net review
of theDentronMT-3000a tuner..
Below is K8JS's post on eham.net...
======================================
K8JS Rating: 3/5 Feb 22, 2004 00:59 Send this review to a friend
Basically Is OK, but not the best Tuner Out There Time owned: more
than 12 months
...<snip>...
I also ran balanced feedline antennas at that time, and discovered
that the built-in balun was badly UN-balanced at it's "balanced" port
for 10 thru 20 meters.
To help remedy that problem I had to replace it with a physically
larger, and much superior "Super Balun" from Palomar that barely
physically fit within the tuner's chassis.
So - with correcting the coil's grounded end making a better contact
to the chassis, replacing the unit's inferior balun, and gingerly
operating those flakey rectangular switched, I was able to continue to
use that otherwise very nice tuner for several more years. ---John,
K8JS
==================================
Well, looks like it is time to replace the stockDentronMT-3000a 4:1
balun with a home made one.
Michael Rawls
KS4HY

Richard Clark

2011-06-12 18:25:28 UTC

On Sun, 12 Jun 2011 03:36:29 -0700 (PDT), Michael

Post by Michael
I have to retract my previous statement when I said the Lazy H antenna
sucks. They rock.

Hi Michael,

That sounds good.

Post by Michael
It is the built in factory 4:1 balun in the
Dentron MT-3000a that sucks on 10 meters.

It probably sucks equally on all bands.

Post by Michael
With the new balun the Lazy
H antenna is performing beautifully.

It would serve us all, and specifically you, if you would describe
EXACTLY what the difference is between the factory built BalUn and
your own new BalUn.

First, can you distinguish between Voltage BalUns and Current BalUns?
They go by other names such as Ruthroff and Guanella. Can you
enumerate the characteristics beyond the transformation ratio?

Do you understand the concept of Common Mode current, and how (not how
much) it impacts performance?

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

n***@wt.net

2011-06-08 19:53:50 UTC

Post by Michael
4) The setting on the antenna tuner where a lowest SWR is tuned may
not be the same setting where the receiver receives the strongest
signal from the antenna. This quirk may be specific to my Dentron
MT-3000a tuner and it's internal factory balun.

You should always use the tuner setting that provides
an acceptable match using the least amount of inductance.
"coil turns, or wound inductor tap setting".
I think you will find that the settings that provide the
least loss, and yes, the receive noise is one way to gauge,
will correspond with the settings using the least inductance.
And the match doesn't have to be a perfect 1:1.. As long as
the rig will put out full power, it's good enough.

Dale Neace

2021-12-25 23:31:28 UTC